campaignsfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Questioning assumptions
I've been giving some thought to participatory democracy, and I realize I need to question some core assumptions. Common Assumption: More people participating in the political process will be better. Does more mean better? People often express disappointment in low voter turnout, but do we really need a larger sample? Will a larger sampling of opinion really yield different results, especially in a climate where the public is largely informed by homogenous media conglomerates with vested interests in the outcome? I have often felt that even an honest democracy is a dictatorship. This is especially true in a culture that is divided (liberals vs. conservatives, for example). The majority rules. The majority dictates to the minority - passing laws, imprisoning people, starting wars and imposing drafts, etc. I can easily imagine it feeling little different than living in a conventional dictatorship - someone is arbitrarily deciding your freedoms and imposing limitations, often to your disagreement. No one likes it unless they're in the majority on a majority of issues, and it seems lately that that is rare. :Have you seen other countries or experienced life in a dictatorship? "Rule by the (current) majority coaltion" seems very different to me than "Rule by one alpha male going crazy with total power". I guess I just see it as obviously clear that a thriving civil society, with many civic organizations, affinity groups, religious movements, and politically active thinkers is good. (See the Wikipedia article on Social Capital.) The more people there are in such institutions (including political insitutions) the more "society" there is getting network benefits from the sense of community and trust that comes from people doing that sort of thing. : The other thing is... "Increasing participation" by exhorting people to act in a system resistant to change, that turns their contributions into dust, is silly. On the other hand, getting particpation by establishing a system that values all contributions creates value for those people... and it does so while building participation with the social capital that comes with it. I'm all for exhorting people to take advantage of new opportunities, and using them to improve the system so that it gives a meaningful voice to everyone. I'm not all for cheerleading for political particpation in useless ways. (Not to say the obvious, but wikis are a perfect example of a system that gives a meaningful voice to nearly everyone and they represent a new political opportunity.) :- JenniferForUnity 23:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC) ::Perhaps what is more important than the size of decision-making circle (be it one person or 300 million people) is the quality of it. And, of course, even when dictators dictate (be they one or 300 million), each individual is free to walk his own path regardless. Disobedience is the final bastion of freedom. --Slije 03:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Common Assumption: A large group making a decision will be better than a single person or small group making a decision. The basic idea of democracy says it's better to have a mob of people deciding than to have one person decide. Yet is this true? Often mobs lose all sensibility and are driven to wild extremes which no one member alone would have supported. Is mob rule, no matter how edified, better? This is no to say I like being told what to do by a one-man or small-group dictatorship either, but does it get any better with a mob, or the competition of several mobs vying for control, as we have now? Isn't a system of consensus really what we're looking for, and completely avoiding? :This seems like a straw man argument to me. "Mob rule" isn't anything like "republican government in a civil society with a tradition of respect for the rule of law". A friend of mine who actually read De Toqueville once told me that she was surprised that he actually argued that democracies had inferior decision making (relative to nobel aristocracies) but the replacement of "peasants" with "people who expect to rule themselves" made up for the loss in nearly every area of society that wasn't government. :- JenniferForUnity 23:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC) Common Assumption: If the political system gave people candidates which better reflected their values, we'd be better off. To a large degree, I believe our current politicians DO reflect the values of people. Take many typical Americans. In some, there is a high level of denial on things such as global warming and the causes of war (oil) and crime (unequal distribution of wealth), there is a deep desire to maintain the status quo because change is uncomfortable, and their is the arrogance of believing that the old ways are right, we know it all, and it's just a matter of forcing other people to accept what's right. These would be the conservatives. Then we have people who see global warming and the causes of war, and want change but don't want to be the ones to bring about that change. They want to maintain the status quo because change is uncomfortable - just fix these things for me but don't interrupt my party and beer supply. These would be the more liberal folks. We also have extremists on both sides in smaller number, who do try to bring about change, but largely through conflict. Our popular politicians reflect these values, these states of being, perfectly. The majority in power now (the conservatives) largely deny the real challenges facing us, and go to great length to maintain the status quo while trying to get the world to be homogenous and obedient to their values. The minority Democrats are unwilling to stand up and express dissent, because they don't want to lose those nice padded congressmen's chairs and other perks, and run foul of those in power. :I guess I'm just not cynical enough to believe this. I think that most people have incredible personal potential and good will and the capacity and desire to improve the world. Sometimes the ways that soceities incentivize behavior can lead people to ceding control of their lives to "outside forces", but I suspect changing the incentive systems can tap the potential. :- JenniferForUnity 23:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC) A lot of Americans beat their children, spouses, and enemies, promote economic exploitation and competition, and believe in authoritarian rule in one form or another (power over, rather than power with), locally and globally. Cooperation, a genuine will for peace, and genuine investment in the common good is rare indeed. The popular politicians in general reflect the popular values. Is sampling a greater number of voters really going to change anything? Is letting people more directly micro-control the decisions (voting on individual issues) really going to yield a significantly different result? I am not just being pessimistic. I believe there is room for growth and change, especially through greater freedom of information and less secrecy, as well as more distributed control. I think a lot of the divisions we see in our culture are the result of largely biased and differing sources of information: conservatives listen to the conservative "news" and liberals listen to the liberal "news". Mostly there is a lot of name-calling and ego battles, attempts to humiliate and destroy the 'reputations' of opponents, and framing of global issues on the basis of narrow, myth-driven agendas. Is just getting more people voting going to help that? Probably not. Intelligence and unity must prevail if humanity is going to survive this century. --Slije 17:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)